The Anaortic Technique with Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Grafting - Filling the Gap in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has consolidated its role as the most effective procedure for treating patients with advanced atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, reducing the long-term risk of myocardial infarction and death compared to other therapies and relieving angina. Despite the recognized benefits afforded by surgical myocardial revascularization, a subset of higher-risk patients bears a more elevated risk of perioperative stroke. Stroke remains the drawback of conventional CABG and has been strongly linked to aortic manipulation (cannulation, cross-clamping, and side-biting clamping for the performance of proximal aortic anastomoses) and the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Adoption of off-pump CABG (OPCAB) is demonstrated to lower the risk of perioperative stroke, as well as reducing the risk of short-term mortality, renal failure, atrial fibrillation, bleeding, and length of intensive care unit stay. However, increased risk persists owing to the need for the tangential ascending aorta clamping to construct the proximal anastomosis. The concept of anaortic (aorta no-touch) OPCAB (anOPCAB) stems from eliminating ascending aorta manipulation, virtually abolishing the risk of embolism caused by aortic wall debris into the brain circulation. The adoption of anOPCAB has been shown to further decrease the risk of postoperative stroke, especially in higher-risk patients, entailing a step forward and a refinement of outcomes provided by the primeval OPCAB technique. Therefore, anOPCAB has been the recommended technique in patients with cerebrovascular disease and/or calcification or atheromatous plaque in the ascending aorta and should be preferred in patients with high-risk factors for neurological damage and stroke.

The Anaortic Technique with Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Grafting - Filling the Gap in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Abstract Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has consolidated its role as the most effective procedure for treating patients with advanced atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, reducing the long-term risk of myocardial infarction and death compared to other therapies and relieving angina. Despite the recognized benefits afforded by surgical myocardial revascularization, a subset of higher-risk patients bears a more elevated risk of perioperative stroke. Stroke remains the drawback of conventional CABG and has been strongly linked to aortic manipulation (cannulation, cross‐clamping, and side-biting clamping for the performance of proximal aortic anastomoses) and the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Adoption of off-pump CABG (OPCAB) is demonstrated to lower the risk of perioperative stroke, as well as reducing the risk of short-term mortality, renal failure, atrial fibrillation, bleeding, and length of intensive care unit stay. However, increased risk persists owing to the need for the tangential ascending aorta clamping to construct the proximal anastomosis. The concept of anaortic (aorta no-touch) OPCAB (anOPCAB) stems from eliminating ascending aorta manipulation, virtually abolishing the risk of embolism caused by aortic wall debris into the brain circulation. The adoption of anOPCAB has been shown to further decrease the risk of postoperative stroke, especially in higher-risk patients, entailing a step forward and a refinement of outcomes provided by the primeval OPCAB technique. Therefore, anOPCAB has been the recommended technique in patients with cerebrovascular disease and/or calcification or atheromatous plaque in the ascending aorta and should be preferred in patients with high-risk factors for neurological damage and stroke.

Comparação entre o método clássico de Gibson e Cooke e o teste da condutividade no suor em pacientes com e sem fibrose cística / Comparison between classic Gibson and Cooke technique and sweat conductivity test in patients with and without cystic fibrosis

OBJETIVO: Comparar os valores de cloro no suor obtidos pelo teste quantitativo da iontoforese pela pilocarpina (teste clássico) com os valores de condutividade no suor obtidos pelo sistema de coleta por Macroduct® em pacientes com e sem fibrose cística (FC). O custo e tempo despendidos na execução de cada teste foram também analisados. MÉTODOS: O teste do suor pelas duas técnicas foi realizado simultaneamente, em pacientes com e sem FC. Os pontos de corte para a condutividade para excluir ou diagnosticar FC foram < 75 e > 90 mmol/L, respectivamente, e, para o teste clássico, cloro < 60 e > 60 mmol/L. RESULTADOS: Cinquenta e dois pacientes com FC (29 do sexo masculino e 23 do sexo feminino; de 1,5 a 18,2 anos) realizaram o teste do suor pelas duas técnicas, apresentando valores medianos de cloro e condutividade no suor de 114 e 122 mmol/L, respectivamente. Em todos eles, a condutividade foi > 95 mmol/L, o que conferiu ao teste 100 por cento de sensibilidade (IC95 por cento 93,1-100). Cinquenta pacientes sem FC (24 do sexo masculino e 26 do sexo feminino; de 0,5 a 12,5 anos) apresentaram valores medianos de cloro e condutividade no suor de 15,5 e 30 mmol/L, respectivamente. Em todos os casos, a condutividade foi < 70 mmol/L, o que conferiu ao teste 100 por cento de especificidade (IC95 por cento 92,9-100). O tempo despendido na execução dos testes foi significativamente menor com o teste da condutividade, e o seu custo também foi inferior. CONCLUSÕES: O teste da condutividade apresentou alta sensibilidade e especificidade, e houve boa correspondência entre os testes. O tempo de execução foi mais rápido e o custo inferior na aplicação do teste da condutividade em relação ao teste clássico.

OBJECTIVE: To compare sweat chloride values obtained by quantitative pilocarpine iontophoresis (classic test) with the sweat conductivity values obtained using Macroduct® collection system in patients with and without cystic fibrosis (CF). The cost and time spent to carry out each test were also analyzed. METHODS: The sweat test using both techniques was performed at the same time in patients with and without CF. Conductivity cutoff values to rule out or diagnose CF were < 75 and > 90 mmol/L, respectively, and for the classic test the chloride values were < 60 and > 60 mmol/L. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with CF (29 males and 23 females; aged from 1.5 to 18.2 years) underwent the sweat test using both techniques, showing median sweat chloride and conductivity values of 114 and 122 mmol/L, respectively. In all of them, conductivity was > 95 mmol/L, which provided the test with 100 percent sensitivity (95 percentCI 93.1-100). Fifty patients without CF (24 males and 26 females; aged from 0.5 to 12.5 years) had median sweat chloride and conductivity values of 15.5 and 30 mmol/L, respectively. In all cases, conductivity was < 70 mmol/L, which provided the test with 100 percent specificity (95 percentCI 92.9-100). Time spent to perform the tests was significantly shorter for the conductivity test, and its cost was also lower. CONCLUSIONS: The conductivity test showed high sensitivity and specificity, and there was good correspondence between the tests. The time spent to carry out the conductivity test was shorter and the cost was lower in comparison with the classic test.

Comparison between classic Gibson and Cooke technique and sweat conductivity test in patients with and without cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare sweat chloride values obtained by quantitative pilocarpine iontophoresis (classic test) with the sweat conductivity values obtained using Macroduct collection system in patients with and without cystic fibrosis (CF). The cost and time spent to carry out each test were also analyzed. METHODS: The sweat test using both techniques was performed at the same time in patients with and without CF. Conductivity cutoff values to rule out or diagnose CF were < 75 and > or = 90 mmol/L, respectively, and for the classic test the chloride values were < 60 and > or = 60 mmol/L. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with CF (29 males and 23 females; aged from 1.5 to 18.2 years) underwent the sweat test using both techniques, showing median sweat chloride and conductivity values of 114 and 122 mmol/L, respectively. In all of them, conductivity was > or = 95 mmol/L, which provided the test with 100% sensitivity (95%CI 93.1-100). Fifty patients without CF (24 males and 26 females; aged from 0.5 to 12.5 years) had median sweat chloride and conductivity values of 15.5 and 30 mmol/L, respectively. In all cases, conductivity was < 70 mmol/L, which provided the test with 100% specificity (95%CI 92.9-100). Time spent to perform the tests was significantly shorter for the conductivity test, and its cost was also lower. CONCLUSIONS: The conductivity test showed high sensitivity and specificity, and there was good correspondence between the tests. The time spent to carry out the conductivity test was shorter and the cost was lower in comparison with the classic test.